Cessna BRS

My gut feeling is that cessna won't ever market an LSA.

On 13 Apr 2007 16:06:34 -0700, "Skyman1957"
wrote:

Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
parachute option? Yes or No.

Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
theory works. Thanks in advance!

Skyman1957

On Apr 14, 12:52 pm, (Drew Dalgleish)
wrote:
My gut feeling is that cessna won't ever market an LSA.

I'd wager with you that you are wrong. There is a LOT of money in
LSA, and it's money that will not go into thier existiing aircraft if
they did not go through with LSA production. Cessna would be total
fools to not go through with the plans for the planes.

"James Sleeman" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 14, 12:52 pm, (Drew Dalgleish)
wrote:
My gut feeling is that cessna won't ever market an LSA.

I'd wager with you that you are wrong. There is a LOT of money in
LSA, and it's money that will not go into thier existiing aircraft if
they did not go through with LSA production. Cessna would be total
fools to not go through with the plans for the planes.

Cessna is also a long time proponent of having a "family" of airplanes, so
that a new pilot can begin with an entry level aircraft and then move up an
finances and experience justify. Since LSA is currently touted, mainly by
FAA, as a "stepping stone" rating, I agree with you that Cessna will almost
certainly produce an LSA.

Peter

"Skyman1957" wrote:
Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
parachute option? Yes or No.

Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
theory works. Thanks in advance!

My useless opinion:

Since LSA already exist with BRS either as an option or as standard
equipment, I think they will have to strongly consider it from a marketing
perspective. When all is said and done, though, I think they wont because
the bean-counters will win over the marketers.

On 13 Apr 2007 16:06:34 -0700, "Skyman1957"
wrote:

Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
parachute option? Yes or No.

Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
theory works. Thanks in advance!

Skyman1957

I think that BRS's are a stupid addition to an aircraft on a number of
accounts.

they allow idiots to go to sleep on the consequences of their actions
and fly needlessly into danger in the belief that the brs will recover
from all mistakes.

aircraft structural engineering is a known methodology which can
produce structurally competent aircraft. There is absolutely no excuse
for bringing structurally doubtful ultralights into existence.

maintenance on aircraft is a known methodology and there is no excuse
for structural defects due to maintenance neglect.

deploying a BRS results in destruction of an aircraft.

deploying a BRS effectively removes the ability to control an aircraft
to a successful forced landing.

deploying a BRS can kill you. ask the people who discovered the
ultralighters that deployed their BRS for some unknown reason and both
died when it plonked them upside down into a field in australia

Cessna particularly have a history of engineering and producing
aircraft that can fly thousands of hours and survive for at least a
quarter century. Why would they ever need to put in a BRS???

Stealth Pilot

"Skyman1957" wrote in message
oups.com...
Q: Will the new Cessna LSA have a factory installed ballistic recovery
parachute option? Yes or No.

Let me know your gut feeling. I want to see if group intelligence
theory works. Thanks in advance!

Skyman1957


I vote it will be an option, but not included.

In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

I vote it will be an option, but not included.

I would concur with that.

An issue is the additional weight of the BRS to an already weight l
imited aircraft.

Granted, the weight limit is an artificial one. The weight limit
none-the-less dictates the design.

john smith wrote:
In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

I vote it will be an option, but not included.

I would concur with that.

An issue is the additional weight of the BRS to an already weight l
imited aircraft.

Granted, the weight limit is an artificial one. The weight limit
none-the-less dictates the design.

I agree. The weight will kill it. What suprises me is that the FAA didn't
grant a wiaver for BRS weight in LSA as they did in for ultralights with
floats.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
john smith wrote:
An issue is the additional weight of the BRS to an already weight l
imited aircraft.

Granted, the weight limit is an artificial one. The weight limit
none-the-less dictates the design.

I agree. The weight will kill it.

What exactly is the weight penalty for a BRS? For an LSA my understanding
is that total system weight was in the ~29 to ~35 lb range. (Or put another
way, around 5 to 6 gallons of fuel.)

Price penalty would probably in the ~US$4100 to 4500 range.

Both BRS Parachutes and Magnum Parachutes seem to offer comparable products
in price and system weights:

http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDoc...?DocumentID=84
http://www.magnumparachutes.com/products.htm

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
john smith wrote:
An issue is the additional weight of the BRS to an already weight l
imited aircraft.

Granted, the weight limit is an artificial one. The weight limit
none-the-less dictates the design.

I agree. The weight will kill it.

What exactly is the weight penalty for a BRS? For an LSA my
understanding is that total system weight was in the ~29 to ~35 lb
range. (Or put another way, around 5 to 6 gallons of fuel.)

Price penalty would probably in the ~US$4100 to 4500 range.

Both BRS Parachutes and Magnum Parachutes seem to offer comparable
products in price and system weights:

http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDoc...?DocumentID=84
http://www.magnumparachutes.com/products.htm

That weight is the only the BRS itself and not what would have to be done to
the airframe itself to add the system and while it doesn't seem like a lot
it is about 10% of the useful load of an LSA and it is weight that is much
further back than the fuel tanks so it will count for more in virtually any
LSA installation.

Don't forget to add to the price that it will have to repacked every 6
years. While I don't know what they charge I'd bet it ain't cheap.

Plus I never really liked the idea of having an explosive device right
behind my head. And yes, I not particularly thrilled about having one in
front of me aimed at my chest in my car either, but a lot more of those have
been built and I figure most of the bugs have been worked out.